pawshake.comReviews of pawshake.com

Response from pawshake.comOct 13, 2026

Thank you for sharing your feedback, Lukman. We take disputes seriously and appreciate the opportunity to clarify what occurred. Pawshake is designed to protect both pet owners and sitters by handling all bookings, communication, and payments securely through our platform. Regarding the points raised in your review: Evening Visits & Refunds: Any changes to a booking or requests for refunds must be agreed upon and processed in advance before payment is released. You initially agreed with the sitter that she could retain the evening visit fees after making alternative arrangements. Because this was mutually agreed upon and payment had already been processed, we cannot retroactively overturn that decision after the booking has ended. We no longer retain the funds in escrow for this purpose. Off-Platform Payments: The £80 private advance was transferred directly to the sitter outside of Pawshake. Because Pawshake never processed or held those funds, we are unable to issue a direct refund on her behalf. However, our team instructed the sitter to repay you directly and took action regarding her profile for breaching our terms. We strongly remind all users to manage all booking changes in advance and never arrange payments outside of Pawshake so that full platform protections apply. As a marketplace platform, out hands out tied when arrangements are made outside of our processes. Kind Regards Pawshake Support

Response from pawshake.comOct 8, 2026

Hi Julien, While we sympathise with the loss of your senior dog, we must clarify the facts surrounding your claim, as your review presents a misleading narrative of our investigation and policy enforcement. Documented Pre-Existing Condition: Your claim under the Peace of Mind Guarantee was formally rejected based on official veterinary records dated 2 June—months prior to your August booking. Those records documented severe pre-existing health issues under active medical investigation, including chronic GI problems, progressive mobility loss, and significant weight loss. Under platform terms, pre-existing conditions are strictly excluded from coverage. We did, however, process a refund of SGD 176.00 for the unused nights when the stay was cut short. Failure to Disclose & Impact on Sitter: Sitters are human beings, not machines, and depend on full transparency from pet owners regarding an animal's medical needs. The severe mobility limitations documented by your vet in June were not disclosed to the sitter prior to the stay. As a result, when your 18kg dog collapsed during the booking due to his pre-existing condition, the sitter was forced to physically carry him, resulting in a permanent physical injury to her. Evolving Allegations: As it became clear that the June veterinary records established a pre-existing condition that invalidated the claim, the narrative provided to us shifted. Initial discussions regarding benign granola bars were reframed months after the stay as "chocolate poisoning." This late assertion was never supported by a contemporaneous August toxicology report, a vet diagnosis of chocolate toxicity at the time of care, or any finding in the original clinical notes. Irrelevant Disparagement: Attempts were also made to influence our assessment by introducing an unrelated 2019 news article regarding the sitter's past. Digging up a seven-year-old external incident to disparage a sitter is unacceptable, irrelevant to medical facts, and plays no part in an objective contractual assessment. Pawshake evaluates every claim using documented medical evidence, contemporaneous vet records, and clear policy boundaries. While we recognise this was an emotionally distressing time, we stand by our firm, evidence-based review and our duty of care to both pet owners and sitters. Kind regards, Pawshake Support